1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 890 F.Supp.
  5. 890 F.Supp. 322 (1995)
 

AURORA MARITIME v. ABDULLAH MOHAMED FAHEM & CO.

Nos. 94 Civ. 318 (SS), 94 Civ. 3319 (SS).

890 F.Supp. 322 (1995)

AURORA MARITIME CO., LTD. Plaintiff, v. ABDULLAH MOHAMED FAHEM & CO. Defendant. MEDMAR, INC., Plaintiff, v. FAHEM & CO. Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 19, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Tisdale & Associates, New York City (Patrick Lennon, of counsel), for Aurora Maritime Co. and Medmar, Inc.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York City (Russell E. Brooks, of counsel), for The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd.

Opinion and Order

SOTOMAYOR, District Judge.

In these admiralty cases, garnishee The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited ("HSBC") seeks to vacate attachments issued to plaintiffs under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims ("Rule B"). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to vacate the attachments is denied.

Background

The facts in this case are not in dispute. Plaintiffs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases